“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799), courtesy of 'Deogolwulf'

Friday, 03 March 2017

'The Kraut' opens my eyes - again!

I refer, of course, to Charles Krauthammer, my teacher and my guide when it comes to the American 'body-politic', an organism of such complexity and change-ability as to defy the understanding of a mere 'Limey'. Child-like, I hold his hand as he leads me into the labyrinthine complexities of the ever-shifting constituents of American power politics.

Over at the NRO, he has an article which, in effect, writes off the Congress as not only supine but also failing in its duty to reign in an over-mighty White House. This began under Obama who scattered Presidential edicts like confetti at a wedding at which the Congress moaned and groaned but failed to do anything very much. Thus it was that some new players entered the field in the unlikely form of various States Attorneys.

Into that vacuum stepped the states. Florida and 12 others filed suit against Obamacare the day it was signed. They were later joined by 13 more, making their challenge the first in which a majority of states banded together to try to stop anything.

That, and other lessons, have been learned by the Democratic party who are outnumbered in the Congress. Thus, within a few weeks of a Trump presidency, sundry States Attorneys have mounted legal challenges to Trump edicts. 'The Kraut', despite his Right-wing leanings, praises the development as an example of the ability of the American political system to grow new limbs where others have withered. He takes no sides as to who is right or wrong on any of the particular issues, he is just happy that rule by edict faces opposition.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

All this Executive Power has been growing for years and all Presidents have used it. It is simply that the Obama years of over reach, to the point of intervention by the Supreme Court, finally produced a counter result in Donald Trump. He promised to erase Obama's abuses and is doing so as little of it had any basis in legislated authority--ie law. A "phone and a pen" can be undone by the same.

If Trump will be a true "disrupter", he can begin by enforcing the rule of existing law. He can add Conservatives to all court positions that are open or will come open. He can continue the reduction of the administrative state which has become an unnatural 4th branch of government. It is a threat to our individual liberty. Along with the courts and like minded members of Congress, the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution can be used for their original purposes. This will entail near civil war within our power structures. Times a waistin'.

Quite right, Robert. What Trump has done, so far, is to issue Executive orders to. get this, ENFORCE THE LAW as it exists, right now. He has done too little, so far, but, "a journey of a thousand miles" and all that. The O'Guy issued edicts that changed Obamacare, because it was passed in such haste that there were many bugs in it. Rather than go back to Congress, which, by then, included a Republican House, he just took out the old 'phone and pen. If Trump simply voids those actions, which were illegal, anyway, he effectively repeals Obamacare, as the system comes grinding to a halt. I am fairly sure that there are people who can tell Trump this, and some others around him who say that the fallout from such an action would be deadly. However, it is out there as an option.

So far, I do not see any rule by decree, although a man of such smartitude as the Kraut may be able to cite some examples. It will be fun to watch, no , it already is fun to watch.

You're possibly being disingenuous, but would be well advised to find a better teacher than Krauthammer, David. Executive orders have been generally declining in number since FDR, and Obama issued fewer than his predecessor GW Bush:

True enough Whitewall on the 9th. It wasn't the constitutionality ruled on. The Supreme Court, by way of the Constitution, have the judicial authority to rule something unconstitutional. The 9th circuit is extremely partisan and should be broken up.

When Bob says something is unconstitutional he means it is unconstitutional. End of argument. Just like when Pelosi says she never met the Russian ambassador then she never met him. Get with programme Up2L8!

The Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s claims that the president had unlimited authority on immigration issues affecting national security
This case was about two questions, only one of which the 3 judge panel even mentioned. The 1st question is how broad the president’s authority is to limit admissions from the relevant seven countries. The 2nd to what extent is that authority limited by constitutional law. There is a statute that gives him the sweeping power to do this: (8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens)

[(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrant’s, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.]

The one question the panel does discuss, is the extent to which the repeated and overt invocations on the part of the President himself and his Twitter feed will render an otherwise valid exercise of this power invalid.

So, if the EO wasn't unconstitutional why did the administration remove the sections found to be unlawful or unconstitutional for a second try, which has been delayed?
One word: Expediency - Looking foreword it would be next year before the SC would make a ruling. And many undesirables could gain entry during that time period.

But it’s worth emphasizing that the grounds on which this order was fought are not the grounds on which the merits fight will happen. Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.

What was Trump's aim? It was to impose a pause while "extreme" vetting was imposed. I expect, that while the democrats get on with destroying the judicial system, Trump is applying extreme vetting using the neat bureaucracy the democrats have created.